7 ms·

This is the fourth among the U.S. nuclear weapons institutions that I've read is in trouble, going back several years: 1) Air Force ICBM launch operations: The

This is the fourth among the U.S. nuclear weapons institutions that I've read is in trouble, going back several years: 1) Air Force ICBM launch operations: The General in charge had a serious drinking problem (consider that for a moment), to the extent that he went on a bender in Moscow. Among launch officers, there was widespread cheating on qualification tests, disregard for regulations (such as sealing doors to secure rooms), and very low morale. 2) Air Force nuclear bomber operations: At one point, they lost track of a nuclear bomb (or maybe cruise missile), and it was flown to a base in another part of the country before anyone figured it out and could track it down. The Secretary of Defense fired the General in charge. 3) Security at facilities containing highly enriched uranium/plutonium (the essential material to making weapons; the one component that keeps terrorists from making one): At one facility, some peace protestors (not James Bond-level attackers) breached the security and setup a protest next to a building containing the materials. They were there for something like 30 minutes before they were discovered and apprehended. 4) And now this. This isn't a system that can succeed 99.999% of the time. If one nuclear weapon gets into the hands of someone willing to lose it, millions of people will die and then you can imagine the response - the course of history and civilization will change.

nameisu 10y ago
a terrorist state already has nukes.
- hackuser 10y ago
  It depends on how "terrorist state" is defined, but North Korea might count. A state is different; they have something to protect and are subject to deterrence through threatened retaliation. Groups like al-Qaeda are more dangerous in this regard.
  - eternalban 10y ago
    > It depends on how "terrorist state" is defined, but North Korea might count. Who is NK terrorizing? Their entire (Korean) story from top to bottom seems to be based on factual invasions throughout the Korean history from near and far flung people, and their party line is insistence to remain independent and free. Isn't NK also in multiple crosshairs? Have they no right to have a military? Only certain nations can make threats and others must be meek or else be called "terrorist"? What bullshit. It gets tiring.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      > Who is NK terrorizing? South Korea: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Gangneung_submarine_infiltration_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Gangneung_submarine_infil... Malaysia: * http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/11/anatomy-of-a-north-korean-assassination.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/11/anatomy-of-... Japan: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Japanese_citizens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Jap... and so on and so forth.
    - learc83 10y ago
      >Who is NK terrorizing? Their own people. Constant threats to rain nuclear destruction on South Korea. The bombing of Korean Air Flight 858. Killing Kim Jong-nam in Malyasia with VX nerve gas. Are you just being deliberately obtuse? You really think that North Korea is some kind of victim of bullying by the international community? >Only certain nations can make threats and others must be meek or else be called "terrorist"? Name one other country that repeatedly threatens to completely annihilate another one and isn't labeled "terrorist".
      - hueving 10y ago
        >Name one other country that repeatedly threatens to completely annihilate another one and isn't labeled "terrorist". I'm not sure if "death to America" qualifies, but if so, it's not cool to call Iran "terrorist" at the moment.
        learc83 10y ago
        The US litterally labels Iran a terrorist state. They are on the state sponsors of terrorism list.
    - kobeya 10y ago
      > Who is NK terrorizing? South Korea, Japan.
- quakeguy 10y ago
  Saudi Arabia? /s
M_Grey 10y ago
Given that list, and given the facts, the two broad options seem to be: A visionary leader who can make these issues clear to people (haha) The course of history and civilization will change. Now, when you look back on our history, how often do we as a species anticipate and prevent the .001% calamity, and how often do we need to be neck deep in it before we realize that there's some trouble? The only thing that's changed here- and it isn't us as people- is that once we're in it with nuclear weapons, there is no coming back, but so what? That hasn't changed people at all.
- 3pt14159 10y ago
  This is why we should all become more knowledgeable about nuclear weapons. Right now there is no political pressure to make things more safe because the electorate is largely uneducated. I recommend this podcast: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/podcast/ http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/podcast/ Which has really pulled back the curtain on nuclear thinking. There's also a private members slack if you support them on Patreon, which is endlessly useful. And really, if you're going to support a podcast on Patreon, I can't think of a better case than the ACW Podcast: https://www.patreon.com/acwpodcast https://www.patreon.com/acwpodcast
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    "This is why we should all become more knowledgeable about [ANYTHING]. Right now there is no political pressure to make things more [ANYTHING] because the electorate is largely uneducated." We can't get people on the same page with their health insurance... nuclear disarmament might be a big ask in that context.
jakeogh 10y ago
2) 6x Nuclear cruse missiles, W80 variable yield (150kt). I find the public story hard to believe, there's a window that is mandatory to check to see if the warhead is real. On the positive side people actually got fired.
jriley 10y ago
As a counterpoint, zero defect policies could be be harmful. If everyone must take a test and score 100% or otherwise end their career, shenanigans happen.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  You also have a problem with precision. A test with a 100% pass threshold is a really poor estimator of an underlying failure rate; at best it can bound it, but you really do care about the precise underlying odds of failure.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Right... except that when you're playing with a few things, like engineered plagues, or nuclear weapons... you need to be perfect. If you can't be, then for fuck's sake, let the perfect be the enemy of the good!!
  - h4nkoslo 10y ago
    If your system requires 100% perfection from all of its subcomponents, it is a shitty, fragile system. Robust systems can be made of parts with known failure rates.
    - jfoutz 10y ago
      This this this. I really see this as the core of my job, career even. Build reliable systems out of unreliable parts. Hardware fails, software has bugs, people have bad days. Yet we still make insanely reliable stuff. Until you actually launch the missile, it should be ok to do nothing. People will invariably fuck up. The system needs affordences to handle those inevitablys. Ideally a drunk commander shouldn't matter, matter much anyway.
      - wongarsu 10y ago
        Accidentally launching a missile is pretty hard and I'm confident that we have enough safeguards against that. I'm not so sure we have enough safeguards against terrorists stealing nuclear weapons (or the essential components for making one). You only need somebody with motive and motivation, and a mistake by pair of truck drivers. It's fairly hard to make a reliable system out of that failure mode.
subway 10y ago
Regarding the Y-12 breaches, 'not James Bond-level' is a minor understatement. We're talking about an 82 year-old nun. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Rice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Rice
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Well, at least they jailed her for 2 years for that terrible act of showing authorities to be grossly incompetent. It certainly must have sent a message to the cadres of spy-nuns waiting in the wings to take over. /s I wonder how effective jailing a nun is anyway, a convent is not that far from a jail in many ways (I've had family in one and visited many times, and it felt roughly the same as visiting someone in jail).
  - throwaway7645 10y ago
    You can leave a convent. You can't leave a jail. I also don't know too many nuns getting shanked or brewing toilet-merlot in the convent. Also, most go on errands in the city without an armed guard and manacles.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > You can leave a convent. Yes, you can. I did not claim you can't. But even though you can there are quite a few cases of institutionalization in convents. And the convent I visited had nuns that had not been out in society in a long time, quite possibly longer than the jail sentence mentioned. > I also don't know too many nuns getting shanked or brewing toilet-merlot in the convent. On the contrary, plenty of convents and abbeys engage in brewing! Trappist beer for one. > Also, most go on errands in the city without an armed guard and manacles. No, but back in the day they tended to be chaperoned. Nuns are a dying breed around here, the history I'm recounting is when I was 6, 46 years ago, but still if someone has made their vows and is reconciled to life as a nun I seriously wonder how effective jail would be, I'm pretty sure they would not be too impressed by it (compared to someone not used to solitude at any level).
tomjakubowski 10y ago
There was also massive, almost institutionalized cheating on the proficiency tests to babysit the nukes at Malmstrom AFB. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/us/air-force-fires-9-officers-accused-in-cheating-scandal.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/us/air-force-fires-9-offi...
AdamJacobMuller 10y ago
Highly suggest reading "command and control" by eric schlosser (fast food nation). Terrifying but amazing book: https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788 https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Ill... I'm really not sure why we're still alive.
- kqr2 10y ago
  There is also a documentary which includes some reenactments of the incident: http://www.commandandcontrolfilm.com/ http://www.commandandcontrolfilm.com/
  - throwaway7645 10y ago
    Watched this recently. We almost lost Little Rock & most of Arkansas along with western Tennessee (Memphis). The documentary was horrifying.
    - leeoniya 10y ago
      also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash
      - acqq 10y ago
        Yes, there were two bombs as the plane broke. One bomb, from its internal perspective, had a "fully normal drop": there was the switch that was triggered only once the bomb actually leaves the plane through the expected door -- it was activated as the plane broke exactly in a way that from the bomb perspective it simply wasn't an accident but "do it." On that bomb, the only switch that wasn't "on" was the one which a crew member was supposed to pull prior to the drop. On the another bomb, from which point of view the dropping sequence was less "normal" (the breakup of the plane made less clear-cut case from the perspective of that one, so some internal components didn't activate) the same switch was discovered in the "on" position. So it was really, really close call. (A "small" curiosity: These bombs are two-stage bombs, one weaker nuclear explosion forces the next, one stronger. The "weaker one" part of one of the bombs, with its radioactive content that has enough material for a nuclear explosion is still there(!) deep in the ground.)
rdtsc 10y ago
I think at some level there is a problem of mission and purpose. A military unit needs to believe what they are doing is important, like they are saving the country, protecting its citizens and so on. After the Cold War, I'd imagine, the strategic nuclear forces probably ended up losing some of that "mission" and "purpose" and at least informally became more irrelevant. That has to take an emotional toll on everyone involved. You go to work deep down in a bunker, follow a 1000 little rules and procedures, deal with lots of red tape, outdated technology and so on, but you don't really believe your actions today are protecting or saving anyone. I think there is probably a parallel there with software maintenance. There are a lot of developers keeping alive and maintaining old code. Most written in languages which are not cool anymore. Nobody on HN is boasting making cool apps with them, others make fun of it. And there you are having to write patches and manage updates and so on it. The software is keeping the business alive and you are getting paid, but it is hard to feel proud and boast about your "cool project you are working on" during meetups or conferences. I would imagine that takes some toll as well on a person.
- hackuser 10y ago
  From what I read, issues like that indeed affected morale.
sandworm101 10y ago
>> If one nuclear weapon gets into the hands of someone willing to lose it, millions of people will die. That's just not true. There are a host of technologies designed to prevent a captured bomb ever being used, and I presume an entire department at the DoE dedicated to them. The very structure of a modern bomb makes use by thieves impractical. (Misuse by US forces is a different matter.) (1) Bombs do not have hollywood-style timers. You cannot just cross a few wires. Getting a modern fusion device to properly explode requires the participation of a great many systems. For example, a warhead meant for a missile has safety triggers looking for flight path and altitude. Faking something like 200 seconds of zero-G flight while in vacuum isn't easy. Bypassing the sensors isn't easy. Detonating the explosives yourself, bypassing the electronics altogether, will not create a nuclear explosion. You have to know how to time everything very precisely. Doing that without the bomb's willing participation is practically impossible. The necessary equipment to launch the device in a manner that will result in a nuclear explosion doesn't travel with the bomb anywhere except while deployed. (2) There isn't much nuclear material in a modern fusion bomb. This isn't a blob of enriched uranium like seen in WWII bombs. This is a very thin and hollow sphere of uranium packed with hydrogen and other harmless elements. You could grind up that sphere to make a "dirty" bomb but even then there is very little material. You won't be killing millions. For the effort, a terror group could do far more damage with weapons bought legally at any wallmart. (3) Bombs in transit (ie off-base) are packed in tech meant to prevent misuse. Just cracking open the crate will probably trigger a device to blank the circuitry’s internal memory, making proper detonation impossible. (I've read about such system on non-nuclear missile systems and presume they are also used with nukes).
- kobeya 10y ago
  > There isn't much nuclear material in a modern fusion bomb. This isn't a blob of enriched uranium like seen in WWII bombs. This is a very thin and hollow sphere of uranium packed with hydrogen and other harmless elements. What about the primary?
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Primary and secondary in todays devices arent as different as they once were in "spark plug" configs. These are boosted weapons. A hollow sphere of fission material is collapsed into a point. Hydrogen is inside to add fusion reactions, increasing the efficiency of the fission reaction without the need of a formal secondary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon There are also "hourglass" warheads with integrated secondarys that are much smaller than spark plug configs.

nameisu 10y ago

a terrorist state already has nukes.

hackuser 10y ago
It depends on how "terrorist state" is defined, but North Korea might count. A state is different; they have something to protect and are subject to deterrence through threatened retaliation. Groups like al-Qaeda are more dangerous in this regard.
- eternalban 10y ago
  > It depends on how "terrorist state" is defined, but North Korea might count. Who is NK terrorizing? Their entire (Korean) story from top to bottom seems to be based on factual invasions throughout the Korean history from near and far flung people, and their party line is insistence to remain independent and free. Isn't NK also in multiple crosshairs? Have they no right to have a military? Only certain nations can make threats and others must be meek or else be called "terrorist"? What bullshit. It gets tiring.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    > Who is NK terrorizing? South Korea: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Gangneung_submarine_infiltration_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Gangneung_submarine_infil... Malaysia: * http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/11/anatomy-of-a-north-korean-assassination.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/11/anatomy-of-... Japan: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Japanese_citizens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Jap... and so on and so forth.
  - learc83 10y ago
    >Who is NK terrorizing? Their own people. Constant threats to rain nuclear destruction on South Korea. The bombing of Korean Air Flight 858. Killing Kim Jong-nam in Malyasia with VX nerve gas. Are you just being deliberately obtuse? You really think that North Korea is some kind of victim of bullying by the international community? >Only certain nations can make threats and others must be meek or else be called "terrorist"? Name one other country that repeatedly threatens to completely annihilate another one and isn't labeled "terrorist".
    - hueving 10y ago
      >Name one other country that repeatedly threatens to completely annihilate another one and isn't labeled "terrorist". I'm not sure if "death to America" qualifies, but if so, it's not cool to call Iran "terrorist" at the moment.
      - learc83 10y ago
        The US litterally labels Iran a terrorist state. They are on the state sponsors of terrorism list.
  - kobeya 10y ago
    > Who is NK terrorizing? South Korea, Japan.
quakeguy 10y ago
Saudi Arabia? /s

M_Grey 10y ago

Given that list, and given the facts, the two broad options seem to be: A visionary leader who can make these issues clear to people (haha) The course of history and civilization will change. Now, when you look back on our history, how often do we as a species anticipate and prevent the .001% calamity, and how often do we need to be neck deep in it before we realize that there's some trouble? The only thing that's changed here- and it isn't us as people- is that once we're in it with nuclear weapons, there is no coming back, but so what? That hasn't changed people at all.

3pt14159 10y ago
This is why we should all become more knowledgeable about nuclear weapons. Right now there is no political pressure to make things more safe because the electorate is largely uneducated. I recommend this podcast: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/podcast/ http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/podcast/ Which has really pulled back the curtain on nuclear thinking. There's also a private members slack if you support them on Patreon, which is endlessly useful. And really, if you're going to support a podcast on Patreon, I can't think of a better case than the ACW Podcast: https://www.patreon.com/acwpodcast https://www.patreon.com/acwpodcast
- M_Grey 10y ago
  "This is why we should all become more knowledgeable about [ANYTHING]. Right now there is no political pressure to make things more [ANYTHING] because the electorate is largely uneducated." We can't get people on the same page with their health insurance... nuclear disarmament might be a big ask in that context.

jakeogh 10y ago

2) 6x Nuclear cruse missiles, W80 variable yield (150kt). I find the public story hard to believe, there's a window that is mandatory to check to see if the warhead is real. On the positive side people actually got fired.

jriley 10y ago

As a counterpoint, zero defect policies could be be harmful. If everyone must take a test and score 100% or otherwise end their career, shenanigans happen.

h4nkoslo 10y ago
You also have a problem with precision. A test with a 100% pass threshold is a really poor estimator of an underlying failure rate; at best it can bound it, but you really do care about the precise underlying odds of failure.
M_Grey 10y ago
Right... except that when you're playing with a few things, like engineered plagues, or nuclear weapons... you need to be perfect. If you can't be, then for fuck's sake, let the perfect be the enemy of the good!!
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  If your system requires 100% perfection from all of its subcomponents, it is a shitty, fragile system. Robust systems can be made of parts with known failure rates.
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    This this this. I really see this as the core of my job, career even. Build reliable systems out of unreliable parts. Hardware fails, software has bugs, people have bad days. Yet we still make insanely reliable stuff. Until you actually launch the missile, it should be ok to do nothing. People will invariably fuck up. The system needs affordences to handle those inevitablys. Ideally a drunk commander shouldn't matter, matter much anyway.
    - wongarsu 10y ago
      Accidentally launching a missile is pretty hard and I'm confident that we have enough safeguards against that. I'm not so sure we have enough safeguards against terrorists stealing nuclear weapons (or the essential components for making one). You only need somebody with motive and motivation, and a mistake by pair of truck drivers. It's fairly hard to make a reliable system out of that failure mode.

subway 10y ago

Regarding the Y-12 breaches, 'not James Bond-level' is a minor understatement. We're talking about an 82 year-old nun. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Rice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Rice

jacquesm 10y ago
Well, at least they jailed her for 2 years for that terrible act of showing authorities to be grossly incompetent. It certainly must have sent a message to the cadres of spy-nuns waiting in the wings to take over. /s I wonder how effective jailing a nun is anyway, a convent is not that far from a jail in many ways (I've had family in one and visited many times, and it felt roughly the same as visiting someone in jail).
- throwaway7645 10y ago
  You can leave a convent. You can't leave a jail. I also don't know too many nuns getting shanked or brewing toilet-merlot in the convent. Also, most go on errands in the city without an armed guard and manacles.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > You can leave a convent. Yes, you can. I did not claim you can't. But even though you can there are quite a few cases of institutionalization in convents. And the convent I visited had nuns that had not been out in society in a long time, quite possibly longer than the jail sentence mentioned. > I also don't know too many nuns getting shanked or brewing toilet-merlot in the convent. On the contrary, plenty of convents and abbeys engage in brewing! Trappist beer for one. > Also, most go on errands in the city without an armed guard and manacles. No, but back in the day they tended to be chaperoned. Nuns are a dying breed around here, the history I'm recounting is when I was 6, 46 years ago, but still if someone has made their vows and is reconciled to life as a nun I seriously wonder how effective jail would be, I'm pretty sure they would not be too impressed by it (compared to someone not used to solitude at any level).

tomjakubowski 10y ago

There was also massive, almost institutionalized cheating on the proficiency tests to babysit the nukes at Malmstrom AFB. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/us/air-force-fires-9-officers-accused-in-cheating-scandal.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/us/air-force-fires-9-offi...

AdamJacobMuller 10y ago

Highly suggest reading "command and control" by eric schlosser (fast food nation). Terrifying but amazing book: https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788 https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Ill... I'm really not sure why we're still alive.

kqr2 10y ago
There is also a documentary which includes some reenactments of the incident: http://www.commandandcontrolfilm.com/ http://www.commandandcontrolfilm.com/
- throwaway7645 10y ago
  Watched this recently. We almost lost Little Rock & most of Arkansas along with western Tennessee (Memphis). The documentary was horrifying.
  - leeoniya 10y ago
    also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash
    - acqq 10y ago
      Yes, there were two bombs as the plane broke. One bomb, from its internal perspective, had a "fully normal drop": there was the switch that was triggered only once the bomb actually leaves the plane through the expected door -- it was activated as the plane broke exactly in a way that from the bomb perspective it simply wasn't an accident but "do it." On that bomb, the only switch that wasn't "on" was the one which a crew member was supposed to pull prior to the drop. On the another bomb, from which point of view the dropping sequence was less "normal" (the breakup of the plane made less clear-cut case from the perspective of that one, so some internal components didn't activate) the same switch was discovered in the "on" position. So it was really, really close call. (A "small" curiosity: These bombs are two-stage bombs, one weaker nuclear explosion forces the next, one stronger. The "weaker one" part of one of the bombs, with its radioactive content that has enough material for a nuclear explosion is still there(!) deep in the ground.)

rdtsc 10y ago

I think at some level there is a problem of mission and purpose. A military unit needs to believe what they are doing is important, like they are saving the country, protecting its citizens and so on. After the Cold War, I'd imagine, the strategic nuclear forces probably ended up losing some of that "mission" and "purpose" and at least informally became more irrelevant. That has to take an emotional toll on everyone involved. You go to work deep down in a bunker, follow a 1000 little rules and procedures, deal with lots of red tape, outdated technology and so on, but you don't really believe your actions today are protecting or saving anyone. I think there is probably a parallel there with software maintenance. There are a lot of developers keeping alive and maintaining old code. Most written in languages which are not cool anymore. Nobody on HN is boasting making cool apps with them, others make fun of it. And there you are having to write patches and manage updates and so on it. The software is keeping the business alive and you are getting paid, but it is hard to feel proud and boast about your "cool project you are working on" during meetups or conferences. I would imagine that takes some toll as well on a person.

hackuser 10y ago
From what I read, issues like that indeed affected morale.

sandworm101 10y ago

>> If one nuclear weapon gets into the hands of someone willing to lose it, millions of people will die. That's just not true. There are a host of technologies designed to prevent a captured bomb ever being used, and I presume an entire department at the DoE dedicated to them. The very structure of a modern bomb makes use by thieves impractical. (Misuse by US forces is a different matter.) (1) Bombs do not have hollywood-style timers. You cannot just cross a few wires. Getting a modern fusion device to properly explode requires the participation of a great many systems. For example, a warhead meant for a missile has safety triggers looking for flight path and altitude. Faking something like 200 seconds of zero-G flight while in vacuum isn't easy. Bypassing the sensors isn't easy. Detonating the explosives yourself, bypassing the electronics altogether, will not create a nuclear explosion. You have to know how to time everything very precisely. Doing that without the bomb's willing participation is practically impossible. The necessary equipment to launch the device in a manner that will result in a nuclear explosion doesn't travel with the bomb anywhere except while deployed. (2) There isn't much nuclear material in a modern fusion bomb. This isn't a blob of enriched uranium like seen in WWII bombs. This is a very thin and hollow sphere of uranium packed with hydrogen and other harmless elements. You could grind up that sphere to make a "dirty" bomb but even then there is very little material. You won't be killing millions. For the effort, a terror group could do far more damage with weapons bought legally at any wallmart. (3) Bombs in transit (ie off-base) are packed in tech meant to prevent misuse. Just cracking open the crate will probably trigger a device to blank the circuitry’s internal memory, making proper detonation impossible. (I've read about such system on non-nuclear missile systems and presume they are also used with nukes).

kobeya 10y ago
> There isn't much nuclear material in a modern fusion bomb. This isn't a blob of enriched uranium like seen in WWII bombs. This is a very thin and hollow sphere of uranium packed with hydrogen and other harmless elements. What about the primary?
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Primary and secondary in todays devices arent as different as they once were in "spark plug" configs. These are boosted weapons. A hollow sphere of fission material is collapsed into a point. Hydrogen is inside to add fusion reactions, increasing the efficiency of the fission reaction without the need of a formal secondary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon There are also "hourglass" warheads with integrated secondarys that are much smaller than spark plug configs.